Technical Field
Methods and example implementations described herein are generally directed to interconnect architecture, and more specifically, to support multicast messages in NoC interconnect.
Related Art
The number of components on a chip is rapidly growing due to increasing levels of integration, system complexity, and shrinking transistor geometry. Complex System-on-Chips (SoCs) may involve a variety of components e.g., processor cores, DSPs, hardware accelerators, memory and I/O, while Chip Multi-Processors (CMPs) may involve a large number of homogenous processor cores, memory and I/O subsystems. In both SoC and CMP systems, the on-chip interconnect plays a role in providing high-performance communication between the various components. Due to scalability limitations of traditional buses and crossbar based interconnects, Network-on-Chip (NoC) has emerged as a paradigm to interconnect a large number of components on the chip. NoC is a global shared communication infrastructure made up of several routing nodes interconnected with each other using point-to-point physical links.
Messages are injected by the source and are routed from the source node to the destination over multiple intermediate nodes and physical links. The destination node then ejects the message and provides the message to the destination. For the remainder of this application, the terms ‘components’, ‘blocks’, ‘hosts’ or ‘cores’ will be used interchangeably to refer to the various system components which are interconnected using a NoC. Terms ‘routers’ and ‘nodes’ will also be used interchangeably. Without loss of generalization, the system with multiple interconnected components will itself be referred to as a ‘multi-core system’.
There are several topologies in which the routers can connect to one another to create the system network. Bi-directional rings (as shown in FIG. 1(a)), 2-D (two dimensional) mesh (as shown in FIG. 1(b)) and 2-D Torus (as shown in FIG. 1(c)) are examples of topologies in the related art. Mesh and Torus can also be extended to 2.5-D (two and half dimensional) or 3-D (three dimensional) organizations. FIG. 1(d) shows a 3D mesh NoC, where there are three layers of 3×3 2D mesh NoC shown over each other. The NoC routers have up to two additional ports, one connecting to a router in the higher layer, and another connecting to a router in the lower layer. Router 111 in the middle layer of the example has both ports used, one connecting to the router at the top layer and another connecting to the router at the bottom layer. Routers 110 and 112 are at the bottom and top mesh layers respectively, therefore they have only the upper facing port 113 and the lower facing port 114 respectively connected.
Packets are message transport units for intercommunication between various components. Routing involves identifying a path composed of a set of routers and physical links of the network over which packets are sent from a source to a destination. Components are connected to one or multiple ports of one or multiple routers; with each such port having a unique ID. Packets carry the destination's router and port ID for use by the intermediate routers to route the packet to the destination component.
Examples of routing techniques include deterministic routing, which involves choosing the same path from A to B for every packet. This form of routing is independent from the state of the network and does not load balance across path diversities, which might exist in the underlying network. However, such deterministic routing may implemented in hardware, maintains packet ordering and may be rendered free of network level deadlocks. Shortest path routing may minimize the latency as such routing reduces the number of hops from the source to the destination. For this reason, the shortest path may also be the lowest power path for communication between the two components. Dimension-order routing is a form of deterministic shortest path routing in 2-D, 2.5-D, and 3-D mesh networks. In this routing scheme, messages are routed along each coordinates in a particular sequence until the message reaches the final destination. For example in a 3-D mesh network, one may first route along the X dimension until it reaches a router whose X-coordinate is equal to the X-coordinate of the destination router. Next, the message takes a turn and is routed in along Y dimension and finally takes another turn and moves along the Z dimension until the message reaches the final destination router. Dimension ordered routing may be minimal turn and shortest path routing.
FIG. 2(a) pictorially illustrates an example of XY routing in a two dimensional mesh. More specifically, FIG. 2(a) illustrates XY routing from node ‘34’ to node ‘00’. In the example of FIG. 2(a), each component is connected to only one port of one router. A packet is first routed over the x-axis till the packet reaches node ‘04’ where the x-coordinate of the node is the same as the x-coordinate of the destination node. The packet is next routed over the y-axis until the packet reaches the destination node.
In heterogeneous mesh topology in which one or more routers or one or more links are absent, dimension order routing may not be feasible between certain source and destination nodes, and alternative paths may have to be taken. The alternative paths may not be shortest or minimum turn.
Source routing and routing using tables are other routing options used in NoC. Adaptive routing can dynamically change the path taken between two points on the network based on the state of the network. This form of routing may be complex to analyze and implement.
A NoC interconnect may contain multiple physical networks. Over each physical network, there may exist multiple virtual networks, wherein different message types are transmitted over different virtual networks. In this case, at each physical link or channel, there are multiple virtual channels; each virtual channel may have dedicated buffers at both end points. In any given clock cycle, only one virtual channel can transmit data on the physical channel.
NoC interconnects may employ wormhole routing, wherein, a large message or packet is broken into small pieces known as flits (also referred to as flow control digits). The first flit is the header flit, which holds information about this packet's route and key message level info along with payload data and sets up the routing behavior for all subsequent flits associated with the message. Optionally, one or more body flits follows the head flit, containing the remaining payload of data. The final flit is the tail flit, which in addition to containing the last payload also performs some bookkeeping to close the connection for the message. In wormhole flow control, virtual channels are often implemented.
The physical channels are time sliced into a number of independent logical channels called virtual channels (VCs). VCs provide multiple independent paths to route packets, however they are time-multiplexed on the physical channels. A virtual channel holds the state needed to coordinate the handling of the flits of a packet over a channel. At a minimum, this state identifies the output channel of the current node for the next hop of the route and the state of the virtual channel (idle, waiting for resources, or active). The virtual channel may also include pointers to the flits of the packet that are buffered on the current node and the number of flit buffers available on the next node.
The term “wormhole” plays on the way messages are transmitted over the channels: the output port at the next router can be so short that received data can be translated in the head flit before the full message arrives. This allows the router to quickly set up the route upon arrival of the head flit and then opt out from the rest of the conversation. Since a message is transmitted flit by flit, the message may occupy several flit buffers along its path at different routers, creating a worm-like image.
Based upon the traffic between various end points, and the routes and physical networks that are used for various messages, different physical channels of the NoC interconnect may experience different levels of load and congestion. The capacity of various physical channels of a NoC interconnect is determined by the width of the channel (number of physical wires) and the clock frequency at which it is operating. Various channels of the NoC may operate at different clock frequencies, and various channels may have different widths based on the bandwidth requirement at the channel. The bandwidth requirement at a channel is determined by the flows that traverse over the channel and their bandwidth values. Flows traversing over various NoC channels are affected by the routes taken by various flows. In a mesh or Torus NoC, there may exist multiple route paths of equal length or number of hops between any pair of source and destination nodes. For example, in FIG. 2(b), in addition to the standard XY route between nodes 34 and 00, there are additional routes available, such as YX route 203 or a multi-turn route 202 that makes more than one turn from source to destination.
In a NoC with statically allocated routes for various traffic flows, the load at various channels may be controlled by intelligently selecting the routes for various flows. When a large number of traffic flows and substantial path diversity is present, routes can be chosen such that the load on all NoC channels is balanced nearly uniformly, thus avoiding a single point of bottleneck. Once routed, the NoC channel widths can be determined based on the bandwidth demands of flows on the channels. Unfortunately, channel widths cannot be arbitrarily large due to physical hardware design restrictions, such as timing or wiring congestion. There may be a limit on the maximum channel width, thereby putting a limit on the maximum bandwidth of any single NoC channel.
Additionally, wider physical channels may not help in achieving higher bandwidth if messages are short. For example, if a packet is a single flit packet with a 64-bit width, no matter how wide a channel is, the channel will only be able to carry 64 bits per cycle of data if all packets over the channel are similar. Thus, a channel width is also limited by the message size in the NoC. Due to these limitations on the maximum NoC channel width, a channel may not have enough bandwidth in spite of balancing the routes.
To address the above bandwidth concern, multiple parallel physical NoCs may be used. Each NoC may be called a layer, thus creating a multi-layer NoC architecture. Hosts inject a message on a NoC layer; the message is then routed to the destination on the NoC layer, where it is delivered from the NoC layer to the host. Thus, each layer operates more or less independently from each other, and interactions between layers may only occur during the injection and ejection times. FIG. 3(a) illustrates a two layer NoC. Here the two NoC layers are shown adjacent to each other on the left and right, with the hosts connected to the NoC replicated in both left and right diagrams. A host is connected to two routers in this example—a router in the first layer shown as R1, and a router is the second layer shown as R2. In this example, the multi-layer NoC is different from the 3D NoC, i.e. multiple layers are on a single silicon die and are used to meet the high bandwidth demands of the communication between hosts on the same silicon die. Messages do not go from one layer to another. For purposes of clarity, the present application will utilize such a horizontal left and right illustration for multi-layer NoC to differentiate from the 3D NoCs, which are illustrated by drawing the NoCs vertically over each other.
In FIG. 3(b), a host connected to a router from each layer, R1 and R2 respectively, is illustrated. Each router is connected to other routers in its layer using directional ports 301, and is connected to the host using injection and ejection ports 302. A bridge-logic 303 may sit between the host and the two NoC layers to determine the NoC layer for an outgoing message and sends the message from host to the NoC layer, and also perform the arbitration and multiplexing between incoming messages from the two NoC layers and delivers them to the host.
In a multi-layer NoC, the number of layers needed may depend upon a number of factors such as the aggregate bandwidth requirement of all traffic flows in the system, the routes that are used by various flows, message size distribution, maximum channel width, etc. Once the number of NoC layers in NoC interconnect is determined in a design, different messages and traffic flows may be routed over different NoC layers. Additionally, one may design NoC interconnects such that different layers have different topologies in number of routers, channels and connectivity. The channels in different layers may have different widths based on the flows that traverse over the channel and their bandwidth requirements. With such a large variety of design choices, determining the right combination of routers, channels, and interconnections for a given system remains a challenge and time consuming manual process, often resulting in sub-optimal and inefficient designs.
Placing hosts in a SoC floorplan to optimize the interconnect performance is also important. For example, if two hosts communicate with each other frequently and require higher bandwidth than other interconnects, it may be better to place them closer to each other so that the transactions between these hosts can go over fewer router hops and links and the overall latency and the NoC cost can be reduced.
Assuming that two hosts with certain shapes and sizes cannot spatially overlap with each other on a 2D SoC plane, tradeoffs may need to be made. Moving certain hosts closer to improve inter-communication between them, may force certain other hosts to be further apart, thereby penalizing inter-communication between those other hosts. To make tradeoffs that improve system performance, certain system performance metrics, such as the average global communication latency, may be used as an objective function to optimize as hosts are placed in a NoC topology. Determining substantially optimal host positions that maximizes the system performance metric may involve analyzing the connectivity and inter-communication properties between all hosts and judiciously placing them onto the 2D NoC topology.
Consider an example wherein there are 16 CPUs and 2 memories that need to be placed in a 3×6 mesh organization. Let the first set of 8 CPUs communicate with the first memory MEM1 and the second set of 8 CPUs communicate with the second memory MEM2 as illustrated in FIG. 4(a). The CPUs and memories may be placed in a 3×6 mesh in sequential order as shown in FIG. 4(b), wherein each host occupies a cell in the mesh and is directly connected to the router of the cell, without consideration of the traffic between various hosts. As can be seen, the inter-communicating hosts are placed far from each other, which lead to high average and peak structural latencies in number of hops. For instance, messages between hosts CPU1 and MEM1 need to go over 7 router nodes, and messages between hosts CPU13 and MEM2 needs to travel 6 hops as illustrated in the figure. Such long paths not only increase latency but also adversely affect the interconnect bandwidth, as messages stay in the NoC for longer periods and consume bandwidth of a large number of links.
One may place the above set of hosts in an organization as shown in FIG. 4(c), which will significantly reduce the average and peak structural latency values. As shown, the maximum structural latency in this organization between inter-communicating hosts is 3 router hops, and a large fraction of inter-communicating hosts are only 2 router hops apart. The host positions in FIG. 4(c) can be achieved from FIG. 4(b) by repeatedly relocating certain hosts from their previous positions to new positions and in process swapping them with the hosts already present at the new positions. While it is relatively intuitive in this example to come up with optimal host positions, if the traffic profile consists of complex connectivity and highly asymmetric bandwidth and latency specifications between various hosts, determining optimal positions for the hosts in a NoC topology may be much more difficult. In fact, it may be reduced to a known NP-hard problem. Thus, heuristic approaches must be used to determine optimal host positions in such settings.
Supporting multicast in NoCs is another challenging function. Multicasting may be used in applications where a source agent needs to transmit the same message to multiple destination agents simultaneously. If these messages are unicasted once for each destination, the bandwidth consumption of channels near the source agent will be excessive as these channels will have to carry the same message multiple times. Additionally, there will be a substantial increase in latency as messages will be transmitted sequentially over these channels. Multicast support in a NoC allows source components to send messages to a group of destination components with a single message transmitted by the source component. Once transmitted by the source component/agent, the message is replicated within the NoC at various nodes in multiple messages, and message copies continue to be routed along different routes leading towards the destinations components/agents.
Multicast in NoCs may be based on a connection-oriented design in the related art, wherein a multicast group can request to reserve virtual channels during establishment and has priority on arbitration of link bandwidth. Multicasting starts after a multicast group is established, wherein once the multicast data packet transmission is complete, the group can be released by its master by sending a release packet to its members. When the release packet reaches a node, the multicast record in the switch and the reserved lane will be freed after all on-going group transactions are completed. Upon reaching the last member, a release acknowledgment is sent back to the master.
The related art also includes a Ripup-Reroute-and-Router-Merging (RRRM) algorithm that synthesizes custom 3D-NoC architectures, wherein the algorithm is based on a ripup-reroute formulation for routing flows to find network topology followed by a router merging procedure to optimize network topology. For the network topology derived, routes for the corresponding flows and the bandwidth requirements for the corresponding network links are determined and the implementation cost is evaluated based on design objective and constraints.
Supporting multicast in NoC is challenging due to a number of reasons. Multicast creates additional channel dependencies in the NoC, which requires more complex deadlock avoidance schemes. Furthermore, determining all routes for multicasting is non-trivial and storing information of these routes in a transaction message requires a large overhead. Quality of service is also challenging with multicast support, and message replication hardware at routers is non-trivial to implement. Multicast support in NoC therefore remains very limited.